# The New Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509 "2008-08-10T17:34:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/81 "2008-08-12T01:10:05Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why the Democrats wouldn’t try to pursue this renewal of the AWB if Obama gets into the White House? Why, again, is it such a “loser issue” as people keep saying? Why are the Democrats including a renewal of the AWB in their official platform if it is - as so many Democrat apologists insist - a “thing of the past” and “not an issue anymore?” Like I said, they’re just keeping quiet about it, and they’re waiting until they have power again after old Bush’s time is up, and then they’re going to go back to the good old days of Clinton gun policy. What is their incentive not to? [/QUOTE] As I pointed out in your other trip to paranoia land ,the repubs have not only talked about abridging your gun rights ,but have actually passed legislation to do it. That means you can not vote for them. The dems are being accused of not wanting every child in school to carry guns. That abridgment of your rights can not be tolerated. May be you should try the Greens or Nader. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/82 "2008-08-12T01:16:20Z")
Where on earth is the proof for that statement? In the other thread you linked to some anti-gun bill sponsored by _three_ Republicans from extremely liberal states. That doesn’t mean anything. The AWB is sponsored by a giant laundry list of Democrats. And under whose presidency was the first AWB passed and enacted? Uh…not a Republican, I don’t think. And the states that are draconian in their anti-gun laws - NY, CA, etc. - what direction do they tend to lean in, again? Come on. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/83 "2008-08-12T01:32:31Z")
[http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm](http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm) I gave you several examples in your other post. Heres one example. What party is he on. Get a knurled pistol grip on reality. No one is going after guns. Sometimes pandering to the base requires making overtures to placate the hard line liberals. in the party. But Repubs Guliani and Pataki were the most successful at gun laws. Figure it out. Real gun abridgment is impossible. You are being suckered into a repub vote again. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/84 "2008-08-12T01:49:27Z")
Nobody is going after guns, huh? Then how in the hell did the first AWB get passed? Why don’t you tell me that? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/85 "2008-08-12T01:54:56Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] I’ll keep saying it again, even though it’s annoying - I want the people from the old thread to get in here, and try to debate this again. I challenge you. Now that this thread is actually on topic and discussing the actual AWB and not a debate over whether gun ownership is appropriate at all, or Europe, or what the hell ever - come back and try to defend your anti-assault-weapon position. See how well it goes. I thought so. [/QUOTE] Is there something innate in you that you can’t resist trying to pick a fight? You’re going to plunge this thread right over the edge into the same abyss the last one fell into. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/86 "2008-08-12T02:06:07Z")
Is there some reason why you’re trying to undermine me? I asked a question which I would think would be natural for this debate - “what makes you so sure that the Democrats wouldn’t try to pass this second assault weapons ban which they have _explicitly stated their desire to do in their 2008 campaign statement?_” - and all I want is for someone to weigh in on it. If that’s plunging the thread into an abyss, then fuck, what are we even doing here? Why don’t we all just go over to THR and talk about whether the 9mm is better than the .45ACP or the AR-15 is better than the AK-47 and swap wacky stories from the shooting range and keep preaching to the choir? What the hell’s the point of having a debate on it if I’m not allowed to ask a debate question? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/87 "2008-08-12T02:22:47Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Driving is not Constitutionally protected. How about voting? Should you not have to prove that you’re literate before you vote? Until the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 literacy tests were used to disenfranchise African-Americans. Would you be for a return to literacy tests? I trust you see the problem with that. Putting a test on a Constitutional right automatically creates people who are excluded, and if the person who administers the test chooses to discriminate on some basis you have the potential for disenfranchising an entire group of their rights. [/quote] Surely you already have the tests for voting rights in the form of age and criminal records? I probably don’t disagree with your overall position on this too much. But purely because someone might be disenfranchised by something doesn’t mean it should be forbidden. People’s voting rights might be disenfranchised by a human or computer counting system. People’s right to religious freedom and free speech appear to be argued in the courts a good many more times than one would expect if there was no means people could be disenfranchised. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/88 "2008-08-12T02:32:33Z")
Gonzomax is entirely correct that the Republicans have legislated gun control in the past, and have attempted to eliminate guns in the cities in the present. I am attempting to get a clearer definition of his stance out of Barack Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/89 "2008-08-12T02:38:12Z")
My point is that the Republican efforts to enact gun “control” laws are nothing compared to the Democrats’ ambitions to do so. Offering up three obscure Republican politicians (from overwhelmingly liberal states) as “proof” that the Republican party is just as anti-gun as the Democratic party is utterly ridiculous. As for Gun Owners of America, nobody is ever good enough for them. They gave John McCain an ‘F.’ Their…scope…seriously needs to be calibrated. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/90 "2008-08-12T02:47:57Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Surely you already have the tests for voting rights in the form of age and criminal records? [/quote] One of those is covered by the 26th Amendment (voting age), and therefore by definition cannot be unconstitutional. The other varies state by state and can be challenged. Neither of those are a test for voting, those are a matter of basic eligibility. A test for a gun owner would be a 30-question multiple-guess quiz before you can buy a gun. That automatically disenfranchises those that are illiterate. > [@](#): > > I probably don’t disagree with your overall position on this too much. But purely because someone might be disenfranchised by something doesn’t mean it should be forbidden. Why not? I can only think of a few exceptions where disenfranchising an entire group is legitimate, and those are based upon physical characteristics, something like forbidding women to hold certain jobs in the military because they can’t dead-lift a 200-pound man. > [@](#): > > People’s voting rights might be disenfranchised by a human or computer counting system. People’s right to religious freedom and free speech appear to be argued in the courts a good many more times than one would expect if there was no means people could be disenfranchised. There is a balance to be struck, but outright refusal is different from a time/place/manner restriction. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/91 "2008-08-12T03:05:54Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] I am attempting to get a clearer definition of his stance out of Barack Obama. [/QUOTE] Good luck with that. This is the guy that can’t tell the difference between a 10/22 and a SAW. Dubya said he’d sign the reauthorization of the AWB if Congress passed it. That’s despicable but not as despicable as introducing or voting for the bill. Lesser of two evils, once again this election. As far as I can tell, the wrinkly white haired guy doesn’t want to ban all semi-auto’s like the change guy. White hair voted against the AWB and the national 5-day waiting period thing. I disagree with the change guy on every firearm issue he’s ever almost defined a stance on. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/92 "2008-08-12T03:15:07Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] One of those is covered by the 26th Amendment (voting age), and therefore by definition cannot be unconstitutional. The other varies state by state and can be challenged. Neither of those are a test for voting, those are a matter of basic eligibility. A test for a gun owner would be a 30-question multiple-guess quiz before you can buy a gun. That automatically disenfranchises those that are illiterate. [/quote] Minors can’t buy guns; that’s not in the Constitution, though, is it? As for it being challenged, I thought your point was that something should not carry even the possibility of disenfranchisement. I was about to disagree that a written test would be necessary, but I suspect it would budget-wise. But what about providing an helper upon request? Someone to whom answers can be relayed if someone is illiterate, dyslexic or whathaveyou? > [@](#): > > Why not? I can only think of a few exceptions where disenfranchising an entire group is legitimate, and those are based upon physical characteristics, something like forbidding women to hold certain jobs in the military because they can’t dead-lift a 200-pound man. Felons in many places can’t buy arms legitimately; neither can the dishonourably discharged or those with domestic violence convictions. It seems that in some cases there are legitimate bases for disenfranchisement, and that one of those is the degree to which a person is deemed to be a safety risk. I don’t see that a test of gun competence and safe handling would be something radical with that in mind. ---
**Author:** ![CatInASuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@CatInASuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatInASuit)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/93 "2008-08-12T03:43:32Z")
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist] This is basically untrue. There are many uses besides killin’, in fact my “assault rifles” have never been used to kill anything and are rather poorly designed for killing, in my opinion. [/QUOTE] I didn’t ask what other purposes it had, because there could be several, I asked what it was designed for. If you have Assault Rifles that are non-lethal and designed for something other than killing, please let me know. [QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist] It’s an article of faith amongst many of us that registration leads to confiscation. The government isn’t trustworthy. Look at what has happened over the past 7 years and tell me that you trust those people to do the right thing. [/QUOTE] Why do you believe that registration leads to confiscation. What basis is that founded upon? As for governments and trust - you are talking to the wrong person. I’ll see your 7 and raise you 10 in GB. But that’s a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/94 "2008-08-12T03:48:10Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] If that hadn’t have happened and the thread stayed on course, could anyone have possibly brought in evidence that actually showed that “assault weapons” led to greater crime…instead of the old “there’s more gun crime in America than any other first world nation.” Of course there is. America is a gigantic country, of course it’s going to have a shitload more gun crime than England and Germany. If England and Germany had the population of the US, the rate of gun crime would be a hell of a lot higher, don’t you think? [/QUOTE] No, I don’t think that. As has been frequently posted, there is far more gun crime in the US than elsewhere, **after allowing for the size of the population**. Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world’s 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. [http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html](http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html) (If you need a poignant example, take [school shootings:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting) - since 1966 there have been about 47 US school shootings, resulting in about 176 deaths - the UK has had 1, resulting in 17 deaths.) ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/95 "2008-08-12T03:52:58Z")
How do you account for Switzerland’s extremely low rate of gun crime despite having the highest per capita ownership of guns on the planet? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/96 "2008-08-12T03:53:36Z")
[QUOTE=CatInASuit] Why do you believe that registration leads to confiscation. What basis is that founded upon? [/QUOTE] I just did a google search and [this is the first page that came up](http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html): > [@](#): > > **Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies** > > New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph) > > In May of 1995, Canada’s Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were “grandfathered,” which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions. > > On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed. > > “Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule…The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain.” (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999) > > Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as “assault weapons.” This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered “assault weapon” had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City’s Lesson) > > More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/97 "2008-08-12T04:07:07Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] How do you account for Switzerland’s extremely low rate of gun crime despite having the highest per capita ownership of guns on the planet? [/QUOTE] Well, for one thing, you get your guns in Switzerland after having gone through a militia boot camp. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/98 "2008-08-12T04:16:00Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] My point is that the Republican efforts to enact gun “control” laws are nothing compared to the Democrats’ ambitions to do so. Offering up three obscure Republican politicians (from overwhelmingly liberal states) as “proof” that the Republican party is just as anti-gun as the Democratic party is utterly ridiculous. As for Gun Owners of America, nobody is ever good enough for them. They gave John McCain an ‘F.’ Their…scope…seriously needs to be calibrated. [/QUOTE] So you have no problem with repubs legislating against guns but maybe the dems might. That is so much worse. You are angry and have been fired up by repub illogic. Don’t buy it. There are believe it or not a couple other reasons to vote. Economy in recession ,foreclosures up the wazoo, national debt skyrocketing, countries in the world that hate Bush are happy to see Obama, . There is hope. But single issue voters can be convinced their pet bitch trumps all else. The dems go from those who think guns should be greatly cut back to NRA gun nuts. The Repugs go from gun nuts to confiscators. You are killing yourself trying to find traction for an idea you bought lock ,stock and barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/99 "2008-08-12T04:22:19Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I don’t see that a test of gun competence and safe handling would be something radical with that in mind. [/QUOTE] I very much agree with you in principle. In practice, I struggle with the implementation and the concerns over the slippery slope. It’s unfortunate that so many on the anti-rights and pro-rights sides are galvanized into a zero-compromise position. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509/100 "2008-08-12T04:23:17Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] So you have no problem with repubs legislating against guns but maybe the dems might. That is so much worse. You are angry and have been fired up by repub illogic. Don’t buy it. There are believe it or not a couple other reasons to vote. Economy in recession ,foreclosures up the wazoo, national debt skyrocketing, countries in the world that hate Bush are happy to see Obama, . There is hope. But single issue voters can be convinced their pet bitch trumps all else. The dems go from those who think guns should be greatly cut back to NRA gun nuts. The Repugs go from gun nuts to confiscators. You are killing yourself trying to find traction for an idea you bought lock ,stock and barrel. [/QUOTE] I have a problem with Republicans legislating against guns. _But they don’t do it as often as the Democrats do._ I feel like I’ve been smashing my head against a brick wall arguing this specific point with you, so I’m going to put it in big gigantic letters so it gets through your head: **IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO CONCEIVED, PROMOTED, AND SIGNED THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.** Why should I trust them? Why oh why, when they have stated in their own agenda for 2008 that they want to reinstate the assault weapons ban? When their candidate, Obama, has been as viciously opposed to gun rights? How can you not see what I’m getting at here? > [@](#): > > The dems go from those who think guns should be greatly cut back to NRA gun nuts. The Repugs go from gun nuts to confiscators. This does not make even a tiny bit of sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-assault-weapons-ban/459509.md?page=6)